Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

DOJ Wants ISPs to Retain All Customer Records 471

Posted by CowboyNeal from the keeping-tabs dept.
doubledoh writes "CNET reports that the Department of Justice is 'quietly shopping around' the idea of requiring ISP's to retain all data of their customer's online activities for at least several months. The SEC already mandates that publicly traded firms retain all company emails for at least 2 years, but it looks like John Q. Public may also soon be subject to similar Constitutional violations. Big Brother, here we come."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Wants ISPs to Retain All Customer Records More

DOJ Wants ISPs to Retain All Customer Records

Comments Filter:

  • Libraries? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by XanC ( 644172 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:12AM (#12839574)
    I wonder if this would extend to libraries, since they specifically continue to include Internet access from libraries in PATRIOT stuff.

    Does this mean I have to start snooping on my patrons, even if I don't currently? At the moment, I don't even store who's using the machines, let alone browsing habits.

    • Re:Libraries? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by badmammajamma ( 171260 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:50AM (#12842307)
      I don't think so since your ISP would have all that data anyway. But who knows? I figure at some point they will realise that you can get bomb making information (aka chemistry books) from a library and decide all libraries will have to have cameras that record every book everyone picks up.

      All this 1984 shit pisses me off. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than give up all privacy and freedom. The administration can go fuck itself.

  • Sure thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jleq ( 766550 ) * <jleq96.gmail@com> on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:13AM (#12839579)
    If the government tries to make that happen, the ISPs and users of the world will shout out a resounding "Fuck You". Not only is that invasion of privacy, it is technologically very difficult to store such a massive amount of information.

    I just love it when people try to regulate something that they know nothing about.
  • You are secure in your documents. However, these are the documents of the ISP.

    Those documents can't be trawled without a court order, so there isn't really anything about this that is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    It may be a little bit distasteful in its invasion of privacy, but it is no more unconstitutional than cameras at intersections or strip searches at the airport.
    • I'm afraid that almost every law the feds push is a violation of the Constitution:

      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    • Re:Is it a Constitutional violation? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:10AM (#12839767) Homepage
      Those are checkpoints, and generally don't need to register information. Yes, you can be recorded by a camera or strip searched, but that is quite different from having your driving habits profiled and your possessions recorded in a log.

      Two months of Internet data? I consider that roughly as invasive as having an agent follow me around for two months. Seriously, these days I read my news online. I use e-mail for communication. I look up anything I want to on google instead of the library. I check out products I want to buy. Two months of IRC logs I don't even want to talk about. As long as I am doing nothing wrong, that is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Sigh. Building a massive profile database is simply wrong.

      Free state:
      1. Suspicion/reason for inquery
      2. Get court order
      3. Gather evidence
      4. Prosecute

      Police state:
      1. Gather massive profile
      2. Get court order*
      3. Review profile for evidence
      4. Prosecute

      *optional

      Do you remember the time, when the difference between us and the East block was that in the East block, the government kept a massive profile on everyone? When the difference was that you could travel around, without the government recording all your movements? he founding fathers never imagined a situation like today. Then, people had to watch people. Now, machines watch people. I am sure that if they had, they would have made an amendment limiting the right of government to do so ex facto, before the fact.

      Kjella

      • Re:Is it a Constitutional violation? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by doubledoh ( 864468 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:56AM (#12839878) Homepage
        Man, I hate your points...because they are so spot on and scary. We really are moving into a bleak totalitarian future.

        One day, after my application for a Parental License is approved by the DOJ, I hope my kid doesn't ask me, "Daddy, what was freedom like like when you were a boy?"

        Or the even worse question, "Why didn't anyone try to stop them from taking away your freedom?"

        I guess I'll just have to reply, "The Ministry of Peace needed to combat terrorists."

        • Actually he'll say, "Daddy, I can't believe you're still bitching about freedom-this and freedom-that. That hippy shit died out in the 2000's. Get over it you old fart, and give me $200 for a movie."

          Properly indoctrinated, he won't even believe in the value of your freedoms.

          I love a good dystopia!

        • Re:Is it a Constitutional violation? (Score:5, Funny)

          by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:03PM (#12842475)
          "One day, after my application for a Parental License is approved by the DOJ, I hope my kid doesn't ask me, "Daddy, what was freedom like like when you were a boy?""

          Come on you are being reactionary, Freeedom will still be around well into the future. Your kids are safe. It will be just a new and improved freedom in Amerika. And with that great new freedom will come great responsibility to defend it.

          To protect our freedom we will have to institute more checkpoints so that the criminals, terrorists, tax evaders and other enemies of freedom can be caught as they try to subvert our freedoms. To help us in our fight against freedom haters, universal surveillance will be possible for the first time in history. Powerful computers will be able to identify suspicious behavior so that activity records can be flaged for further study. Almost immediately any suspicious individual, could be automatically restricted to geographically defined areas, so that any potential subversive activities can be squelched and damage to freedom limited. We will call this the Cat Stevens freedom protection system, or CSFP for short. Once access to government controlled privileges such as transportation are limited, then offenders can in most cases be convinced that freedom gives you many many benefits, such as health care and access to alcohol.

          Everyone has to do their fare share to defend Freedom. That means that people must work hard and contribute to freedom. In fact I imagine the economy will be replaced in whole by freedom. No longer will we be limited by the scourge of market economics where people of dubious character exchange goods, services and ideas without any concern for their contributions to freedom. But rather people of esteemed character will get credits for their efforts. We can call them freedom credits. This will allow those most deserving of our respect, for their efforts in support of freedom, to most enjoy freedom's benefits. After all those who don't work for freedom obviously don't want it.

          So, rest assured. In the future your child will be much more than happy in our brave new world where freedom is the new currency and is at the very core of our society.


      • The question of privacy in the situations you mention revolves around the difference between rights and privileges. In the U.S., you have a right to personal privacy within certain boundaries. The authorities can not invade or search your home without due process. That process supposedly involves the judicial review and agreement that the authorities have a certain level of reasonable belief that evidence exists establishing your involment in criminal activities. This freedom has traditionally been extende

  • So if I build my own internet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:19AM (#12839593) Homepage Journal
    So if I build my own private internet, and don't connect it to the real internet, am I free of the logging requirement?

    How about if I have my own virtual internet, running on top of the real internet? Do I become a virtual ISP and then I have to keep logs?

    What if I don't use the same physical protocol to move bits? E.g. instead of volatages on a wire, I used morse code or smoke signals -- do I then esacpe the logging requirement?

    How big can a LAN/WAN be before it becomes the internet (assuming it isn't connected to the unfree Al Gore created internetwork)?

    What if the information is not contained in the protocols, but some side-channel? Do I, as an ISP (virtual or otherwise), have the duty to discover and provide "side-channel" logs?

  • Terrorists will NEVER find a way to communicate that cannot be read/heard by others....

    suckers...

    In europe they're trying to get this same thing going.

    People are far to easy about this, camera's in the street, etc etc etc... Not in just the US, but in Europe as well.

  • A return to the "Black Chambers"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by N Monkey ( 313423 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:21AM (#12839603)
    the idea of requiring ISP's to retain all data of their customer's online activities for at least several months. The SEC already mandates that publicly traded firms retain all company emails for at least 2 years

    AHH! At last! A valid reason for SPAM. Clog up the backups...

    Seriously though, surely to be thorough this would also require the post office to steam open and photocopy all correspondence? It'd be a return to the so-called Black Chambers that once existed in the US and Europe that opened dipolomatic letters.
    • The SEC already mandates that publicly traded firms retain all company emails for at least 2 years
      TFA is wrong. The SEC mandates that dealer-brokers retain emails -- not "all publicly traded firms." The rule applies to those who do the trading, not to those being traded.

  • An ISP Info Tax (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Macka ( 9388 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:26AM (#12839620)

    So are the DOJ offering to pay for all this? Storing that volume of data isn't free, in fact its bloody expensive. Why should the ISP's have to pay for this themselves, they won't get any benefit from it.

    Its like a hidden tax .. call it an information tax for anyone who wants to get into the ISP business.

  • Brokerage firms and ISPs are not parallel (Score:5, Insightful)

    by putaro ( 235078 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:30AM (#12839638) Journal
    Brokerage firms are regulated by the SEC. The SEC has long mandated that brokerage firms retain ALL communications with and about customers (including phone calls and paper mail) in order to allow the SEC to investigate violations of SEC rules. These searchs are carried out with the knowledge of the investigated firms. The only time this would affect a customer's privacy would be if there was a suspicion of an SEC rule violation, such as the Martha Stewart case.

    Allowing for searching of ISP logs is much more a violation of customers' privacy. There is no notification to the customer, the Justice department keeps asking for the ability to review these records without issuing a subpeona and without any oversight.

    Presenting the ISP logs as an extension of the SEC rules is both incorrect and dangerous. The SEC rules are primarily for the protection of customers and are well founded Constitutionally. The ISP snooping is not.
  • Could someone explain why this is a violation of the Constition? All I know is the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to not give evidence in court that would incriminate you and the right to be free of unlawful search and seizure, but this doesn't seem to violate any of those...

    • Re:For the benefit of the non-US people here (Score:5, Interesting)

      by putaro ( 235078 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:02AM (#12839744) Journal
      You said the right words - don't you think that this is an unlawful search and seizure?

      Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      • Actually, no I don't. I don't see that anything is being seized, at least not in the traditional sense of taking it (possibly by force or under threat of force) from my possession. Likewise, merely recording the information cannot possibly qualify as "search".

        Now, if those logs were actually searched or data mined, then perhaps it would fall foul of the "unlawful search" clause, but failing that, I don't see that it does violate that particular Amendment.

        (Of course, IANAL, etc)

  • This has been going on in the UK for years (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We have a lovely law called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act that forces ISPs to keep various logs and submit them on demand to investigatory agencies. The best bit about this is that the ISP can't tell anyone that they've done it.

    Big brother's already here, and has intercepted you reading this comment.

    Big Brother loves you.

  • In argentina... (Score:2, Informative)

    by cuerty ( 671497 )
    Only old people keeps logs...
    Ok, avoid the bad joke, today I found out this link about a law for ISP and how much they should log and for how much this info should be keeped [altavista.com].
    The original link is in spanish, but in resume it talks about logs of all user activity (sited visites, information trasmited, etc) and how it should be keeped by ten years... and of course, how the ISP should take charge of all this, no the state.

  • "Patriotic" ISP's (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rich42 ( 633659 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:49AM (#12839706) Homepage
    Currently if the government thinks someone is up to something bad online - they generally will have to get a warrant to either confiscate their computer, or monitor their internet access via an ISP.

    Tracking -everything- all users do online might be problematic - but certainly a list of all the web sites a given user hits in a month wouldn't be too tough.

    Presumably they'd need a warrant -require- an ISP turn over the logs - but there'd be nothing preventing some of the more "patriotic" ones from "cooperating in a more pro-active fashion". Ie - just turning over a nice synopsis of everything on a monthly basis.

    Don't think it's possible? There's a case in Seattle where the FBI tried to get a library to hand over a list of everyone who checked out Osama Bin Laden's biography.

    I've personally provided web server logs to police without a warrent because a bomb-threat was involved. I'm 100% sure that case was legit - but I probably would've helped if I was only 60% sure. In reality - they were my employers servers - so I didn't really have a choice.

    "We think 1 of the 10,000 customers you service might be up to something really bad. We'd really like your logs. All of them."

    Are you gonna say no? Is your boss going to let you say no? Requiring ISPs to have the data on hand is not far from requiring the data be readily available to the government upon a "request for cooperation"

    • Well, keeping logs of just 1 active website is problematic enough... imagine doing that for 10000 websites. It's certain to bring extra costs and those costs will have to be paid by someone... and that's going to be the customer.
    • There's a case in Seattle where the FBI tried to get a library to hand over a list of everyone who checked out Osama Bin Laden's biography.
      That's simply retarded. Any genuine member of al-quaeda probably has a signed copy anyway, and the borderline sympathisers probably read it at the local mosque. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire[1], but I'd be interested to read it - know thine enemy and all that.

      [1] unless I'd recently eaten asparagus.

  • Unless they wish to provide funding for this, it will kill small mom and pop ISP's that are barely making a profit with small scale operations. Now they would have to invest large amount of cash in hardware and storage space to archive huge amounts of data. I don't see this going anywhere, and it's going to be impossible to enforce.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Democracy! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:01AM (#12839742)
    How many voters does it take to change a lightbulb? ...None, voters can't change anything.

  • Stupid Government, Bad (Score:3, Funny)

    by binaryspiral ( 784263 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:04AM (#12839750)
    I'd like to meet this congressman and smack him in the head with a newspaper... and say "Nooooo, bad congressman"

    If you still refer to the Internet as "the big blue e" then you can not regulate it.

  • At least we have tor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rasteri ( 634956 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:05AM (#12839754) Journal
    Thankfully, technologies like tor [eff.org] render any ISP's logging capabilities, even if they were to log every single packet, completely useless. You can even run some p2p apps through it.

    (Before I used it, I assumed it would be too slow to use. Boy was I wrong - I hardly even notice the difference in web browsing).
    • Not forgetting external 2.5" USB hard disk drives - and you have 40 to 100 GBytes of untraceable storage space ready to be used at the Internet cafe of your choice.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:07AM (#12839759) Journal
    Part of me wishes the mother fucking terrorists and paedophiles would just start using encryption so we can forget about all these logging/tapping ideas for good and find something else. Obviously what's going to happen in the real world is that the government(s) will waste billions getting these systems working and 3 months later everyone will be encrypting like there's no tomorrow, then these systems will be worthless. I guess after that we will just have to wait until 19 biometric ID-card holding terrorists hijack some more planes and wonder as everyone says "how did this happen?? they had ID cards!!" or perhaps until someone is gang-raped in front of 10 cameras by masked attackers who never get caught.

    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 )
      Don't be silly.

      If terrorists are going to start using encryption, then encryption will be outlawed, except for government-approved encryption which will be crackable by the government. All encrypted data will be filtered and anything that can't be cracked or contains "hot words" will be flagged for further inspection. All other plaintext data will be only scanned for hot words. Any data that is encrypted with a non-approved encryption scheme will be automatically flagged and prosecuted.

      And terrorists a
  • From the article: This represents an abrupt shift in the Justice Department's long-held position that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes."

    This is a case where the Bush administration had it right the first time. We have an economy that looks about as robust-looking as Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, All we need to do is load down one mo

  • nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

    by luckynoone ( 775973 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:10AM (#12839766)
    How is this a surprise? Go look on google groups and see some other quiet actions being taken. Many people who ordered from chemical suppliers, even frickin plastic tubes and such from many years ago are getting threatening letters. These are legitimate citizens who are into chemistry (many licensed) getting pushed around by the DOJ. The government has MANY regulations that cost businesses a fortune to comply with. If you want to get paranoid, you could say that "the system" does these things because that way the poor man will NEVER be able to get rich, because only the rich will be able to afford to comply. So, if they can comply, and their competition is reduced in the process (i.e. smaller businesses), that is all the more bank in their pockets. Personally, this is rediculous. If someone wants to commit crimes, they will find a way. This just reduces our liberties and privacy. Isn't this really what the terrorists wanted all along? A paranoid country spending tons of money on the mere thought of an attack? wide spread panics? companies going out of business due to new regulations? This is what the terrorists wanted. All it took was 19 guys to turn us into our own worst enemy.

    • Re:nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Illserve ( 56215 )
      That probably has more to do with Meth labs than terrorism.

      And at least Meth is a valid concern. Terrorism is not really much of a problem on US soil (compared to other forms of death), but crystal meth is huge and getting worse.

  • Again with the child pornography (Score:3, Insightful)

    by putaro ( 235078 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @05:18AM (#12839790) Journal
    I RTFA and, again, "child pornography" is being trotted our as the excuse for violating everyone's rights. Does anyone have any idea how much kiddie porn is really out there? I'd go look but I don't want anything hanging around in my browser cache. [slashdot.org]
    • Noone knows, and I doubt any one really want to try. Searching for large busts though, I found this:

      "Investigators in the Clay Meron child porn case say his collection of computer images is the largest recovered in Atlantic Canada. An agreed statement of facts, entered into court on Tuesday, showed the 35-year-old had one computer hard drive containing 171,446 images. Police said 70 per cent were offensive images of children of all ages. There were an additional 1,931 video clips on the same hard drive." (
      • Just because one guy has a bazillion files, doesn't mean that everyone on the planet must have contributed to his collection. A fairly small number of file traders, especially if a few are in some country with a thriving kiddie porn industry, could easily account for a very large number of files. No need to assume that because there are a lot of files, there must be a lot of file traders.

        There may BE a lot of file traders, but log-trawling starts with an assumption that the majority of people must be guil
  • unless the US throws its weight around and gets all other nations to do the same thing. Otherwise, you can simply use mail servers and web proxies in nations that don't have logging requirements.

    Even with complete record keeping and logging, this will at best permit traffic analysis, since E-mail and IM will increasingly rely on cryptography.
  • As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.

    I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?

    If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! Think o
  • Don't these guys get it? Have they no idea the volumes of data which they're talking about? Revenue from datastorage/HD companies won't compare to the costs which ISP's must make to comply; this won't be good for the economy, except for some make-work jobs (which seem to be the only jobs Bush can seem to create).

    Appart from that, there's the civil liberties aspect. Why does the american government seem so hell-bent on relieving joe public from his rights? And why does no-one seem to realise that this kind
  • If you believe you have any sort of right to privacy when it comes ot your use of the internet, you're fooling yourself.

    ISPs and publicly-traded companies are not subject to the requirements set forth in the constitution. Those only apply to governments.

    Those requirements would be immoral, but they are not unconstitutional. IANAL, so take that with a salt lick.
    1. Force ISPs by law to log all internet traffic for six months.
    2. Wait until one of these traffic logs containing six months of customer email-- due to a security breach, a malicious employee, or a simple break-in and hard drive theft-- gets stolen and eventually made publicly available.
    3. Repeat (2) as many times as is necessary for one such incident to be widely covered by the media.
    4. Watch as, now that people have an actual incentive to start PGPing their emails and know it, they start PGPing their emails.

  • No problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by williamhooligan ( 892067 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @06:47AM (#12840010)
    I'm all for it. Provided that the DOJ is similarly obliged to log and deliver to my inbox a notification that someone in the DOJ has mentioned considering making me the subject of an investigation, so that I can run away and change my name. Also, if I get apprehended and the case goes to trial, I want the log of every jury member, prosecutor and member of the judiciary subpoenaed and presented as evidence for the defence. I'd happily be imprisoned for a cause I believe in, but I'll be damned if I'm being convicted by someone that likes shopping for antique furniture and goat porn.

  • Back to the Roman Empire analogy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @07:24AM (#12840105)
    I'm sorry to bang on about my hobbyhorse, but...

    I'm quite convinced that Karl Rove et al take the history of the Roman Empire very seriously in assessing how to preserve the special status of the American ruling class (=patricians.)

    The point about the Roman Empire was that there was nowhere to hide for its citizens. The reason that, when accused of crimes, senators went off and committed suicide was that there was nowhere to escape to. This gave the people in power effectively total control.

    In classical Rome, just like Elizabethan England, huge networks of paid informers ensured that the government knew what people were thinking. The result was that the upper classes could continue their internecine wars (i.e. kill one another) while knowing that the system that kept them, as a class, in power was secure. There was no risk that while they were slaughtering one another, the peasants would revolt. Of course, in Rome the emperor also had a private security force - but ultimate power was controlled by whoever had the support of the army. So one Imperial tactic was to keep the army as far away from Rome as possible fighting foreign wars.

    Any similarities are purely coicidental.

  • It won't happen ... here's why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Luscious868 ( 679143 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @08:36AM (#12840426)
    Corporations can basically pay to have just about anything enacted into law if they have enough money to throw at the issue and it's not so egregious as to piss off Joe Sixpack. There's no way the large ISP's will go for this. Look at who some of these large ISP's are. We're talking about large media conglomerates and cable and telecommunications companies. This would probably cost them a lot of time and money to setup and maintain so there's no way they'll go for it and they'll spend a lot of cash to defeat it. They'll score points with the privacy advocates for fighting it and it will benefit them in terms of profitability. It's a win - win for them. This will never happen.

  • Publicly traded firms do NOT have to keep email (Score:3, Informative)

    by wizzy403 ( 303479 ) * on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:15AM (#12841857)
    Only companies that actively trade in securities (IE: brokerage firms) are bound by this SEC rule. Regular corporations (public or private) don't have to keep mail around unless they are part of active litigation. Read and understand what you link to!

  • Quantumly Entangled Internet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:39PM (#12842950)
    I've been thinking about this ever since they did that experiment in Switzerland where they sent one half of a quantumly-entangled pair to the other side of Geneva via fiber optic cable. They pinged one half with lasers, and determined through precise measurement that the information was instantaneous and faster than the speed of light.

    At the same time I read about the experiment, apart from dreams of ansibles, I thought, hey, there's no way in hell for any third party to eavesdrop on two quantumly entangled particles.

    Also in the news was Napster and Freenet, and I wondered if a person couldn't build an Internet using quantum entangled pairs that is totally immune from government intrusion.

    Try to read our logs then, mofos!

  • I Work For an ISP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuintari ( 47926 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @02:03PM (#12844033) Homepage
    I work for a small ISP in NW Ohio. I have a few questions:

    Who is going to pay for the disk space to store all of these logs. we couldn't possibly afford to keep even a weeks worth of logs. We have 2 DS3's for upstreams, out of two POPs, you know how much bandwidth that uses?

    Who is actually okay with the policy of sniffing the innocent in case they might do something wrong? Sorry, no, this is just more repbulican facsist bullshit. Anyone who believes this is a good idea clearly doesn't value freedom in any real sense.

    Who is going to station armed guards in my network, to keep me from making it official company policy to kick the logging machines as you walk by them?

    As an employee of an ISP, I can say we are unprepared to do this, we are unwilling to do this, and..... fuck the DOJ, this is just wrong.

  • I support logging all my packets... (Score:3, Funny)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @02:48PM (#12844707) Homepage

    ...on a technical level.

    They'd be storing this much information on me: http://www.google.com/search?q=6+million+per+secon d+*+1+month [google.com] Which works out to about 1.80 TiB

    And since hard drives are about $0.3875/GB,
    http://www.pricewatch.com/default.aspx?p=http%3A// www.pricewatch.com/prc.aspx%3Fi%3D26%26a%3D4429 [pricewatch.com]

    That means I'm getting an extra $714.24 value out of my $80 Comcast bill, or whatever they charge now.

    And since I only watch my porn that I stream from the internet at H.264 1280p HD (5-6Mbps), caching the data on Comcast's servers is just as good as saving it on my own hard drive.

    Now I already know what you're going to say:

    Q: I get all my questionable content from the internet at H.264 1920p Full High Definition (7-8Mbps), so streaming is not feasible over a 6mbps cable internet line. It is therefore necessary for me to invest in local caching (hard drives) to maintain the full bandwidth during playback.

    To which I say:

    A: l/pw?

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close